Lesson Learned

-

My "Paul Morphy Opening" ... needs work

The Opening: Spot your opponent a pawn and a knight by the 4th move.

Because who needs a second knight and all those pawns?

Paul Morphy would have won that game.  But Paul Morphy's a better player than I am.  And he's been dead a hundred and thirty years.

_

The lesson learned:  It's important to actually look at and consider the move made by your opponent rather than playing the first six moves on autopilot.    

So if you learned the lesson why did you need to post it?

Well, this is taking place in 'Fun with Chess' and the post was, I thought, a mildly amusing take(1) that involved the notion of playing a terrible 2nd and 3rd move and then trying to brush it off using a Paul Morphy-based gag, since Paul Morphy was known for spotting opponents a piece and a move at the start of his games to make things even and my initial two awful moves were my doing the same, but failing, giving the example, coupled with the fact that there's a lot of "Paul Morphy" serious talk/analysis going on in other areas, and then tying the whole post up in a bow by saying that Paul Morphy, though dead, is still a better chess player than I ... but including an Aesop's Fable like "Moral of the Story", in part to serve as a guide to other people like us who play chess badly figuring this:  "If you can't set a good example for others, serve as a horrible warning."

I suppose I didn't 'need' to post original post that any more than I 'need' to play chess occasionally or 'need' a beer right now.    

But, enough about me.  

What about you?
_

(1)  I've been wrong before.